We’ve seen enormous growth in demand for US NuBits recently! Today, over 1,200,000 USNBT was sold with trading 24-hour volume reaching $7,000,000. All this is brilliant and beyond our expectations, which shows by having sold out the entire grant of one million leaving us with zero USNBT to supply eager customers with. 10 days ago our circulating supply doubled, and today it doubled again!

US NuBits has more than $2,000,000 in circulation, with immediate backing available for all of them. As per our liquidity model, NuShare buybacks are directly affected and will increase even further from the already high $6,317 per day.

While growth is excellent, we’re seeing NuBits purchased for more than $1.00, and it worries us that people may make a direct loss from misunderstanding NuBits’ function.

It will always be a losing trade to buy NuBits over their pegged value. In the case of US NuBits (USNBT) that is $1.00, or with more precision $1.005 (at most). We’ll buy NuBits back from customers at $1.00 too, or for at least $0.995. That’s the 1% spread we promise and will do everything in our power to keep.

NuBits’ liquidity operations include creation of new *NBT by shareholders granting them to custodians such as currently the Liquidity Operations team that in turn places them for sale on public exchanges. Shareholders can create however many new NuBits they choose. The limitation lies in how quickly, which when growth is faster than we anticipate a week in advance allows the price of NuBits to rise above the pegged value beyond $1.00. That mainly impacts confidence in our peg, and risks losses for customers who should never have to think of potentially buying too expensive NuBits.

Customers are encouraged to sell their NuBits at a profit any time they see bids for USNBT over $1.00, because you’ll soon be able to buy new NuBits for $1.00.

If you’re seeing the potential of NuBits, turn your attention to NuShares (NSR) which is the combined investment and deep backing vehicle of all NuBit liquidity. We distribute part of NuBit revenue to shareholders in order to sustain long-term reliably backed stable digital currency without submitting to the volatility of the assets NuBits intends to be more useful than.

NuBits is growing, and we need help! If you are a talented developer, know marketing, or have design skills, please contact us at info@nubits.com or apply at https://nubits.com/jobs. You’ll work with a highly competent team in an exciting modern technical space. We value professionalism, reliability, and passion.

Let’s recap! Never buy NuBits for more than $1.00. Sell NuBits whenever you see them purchased above $1.00 because within a week you can buy them for $1.00 again. Invest in NuShares to profit from NuBits.

i don’t understand what you want price of NBT rise up ?!!!
i have buy it for 10 BTC now never can become 10 BTC if i sell it NBT again ,
i don’t understand what you mean , why you not like rise price of NBT up !!!

100% of reserve in cryptoassets is actually not a strong selling point. It would reduce NuBits to a collective fund with maintenance fees and no mechanism for full backing were the cryptoassets to lose value.

Circulating NuBits are currently mandated to be backed to 38% by the cryptoasset reserve, in tier 1 through tier 4. Tier 6 provides the ultimate deep backing of all issued NuBits. There is inherent risk in this system. I’d be impressed by an alternative with substantially lower risk which matches the characteristics of ours.

100% of reserve in cryptoassets is actually not a strong selling point.

I would argue 100% reserve in crypto assets is less risk than 38% in liquid reserves. Nu already has something similar to exorbitant maintenance fees. You and @Phoenix have been compensated on a regular basis.

jooize:

US NuBits has more than $2,000,000 in circulation, with immediate backing available for all of them.

My comment wasn’t arguing against the liquidity model, it was pointing out that what your post claims is misleading to NuBit customers. There is no “immediate backing” for all Nubits in circulation.

jooize:

I’d be impressed by an alternative with substantially lower risk which matches the characteristics of ours.

If I’d be compensated for my time, I would put forth a plan and be the first contractor to take part as a proof of concept. 100% reserve target while still providing a BTC/USD hedging product would be the goal.

The barrier to entry for ideas is very high due to the corporate structure of Nu so I don’t feel it’s reasonable to put forth that amount of effort on my own dime.

Currently there is, was my point, as seen in our latest report. New report coming today.

lissajous:

My comment wasn’t arguing against the liquidity model, it was pointing out that what your post claims is misleading to NuBit customers.

NuBit-backing by only a cryptoasset reserve is counter to the liquidity model, so is arguing for 100% cryptoasset reserve not arguing against the model? Perhaps there’s a way to make that work, but I haven’t seen it yet.

We distribute part of NuBit revenue to shareholders in order to sustain long-term reliably backed stable digital currency without submitting to the volatility of the assets NuBits intends to be more useful than.

We can increase understanding by presenting the liquidity model with an overview of the mechanisms.

lissajous:

If I’d be compensated for my time, I would put forth a plan and be the first contractor to take part as a proof of concept. 100% reserve target while still providing a BTC/USD hedging product would be the goal.

The barrier to entry for ideas is very high due to the corporate structure of Nu so I don’t feel it’s reasonable to put forth that amount of effort on my own dime.

As current management doesn’t believe that it’d be an improvement, you’ll have to thoroughly pitch the idea or convince shareholders that your abilities may result in such a breakthrough.

lissajous:

Nu already has something similar to exorbitant maintenance fees. You and @Phoenix have been compensated on a regular basis.

We are compensated because we get work done. Extra team members are highly desirable, but they have to work in the same direction, be competent, and certainly professional.

As current management doesn’t believe that it’d be an improvement, you’ll have to thoroughly pitch the idea or convince shareholders that your abilities may result in such a breakthrough.

There is no need for this because ‘shareholders’ and current management, it is highly suspected, overlap to a large degree thanks to your chosen secrecy around compensating yourselves unknown amounts.

jooize:

so is arguing for 100% cryptoasset reserve not arguing against the model?

I am not proposing 100% cryptoasset reserve.

EDIT: I realize my wording in my previous comment may have led you to believe I was advocating 100% cryptoasset reserve, but I think having the bulk of reserves at all in cryptoassets is destined to be extraordinarily costly in the long run, as Nu’s history and the NSR price clearly shows.

Last year when our previous liquidity team was replaced, Phoenix was appointed by shareholders. At that time there had been no NuShare losses. For a while there was a motion with support around I believe 40% to suspend liquidity operations entirely, which has been the strongest opposition. A direct motion to fire Phoenix saw less than 10% support. Shareholders then proceeded to print and have us sell NuShares, in accordance with the liquidity model. That caused massive dilutions of existing shareholders, meaning that even if say Phoenix had majority vote before, he’d have to purchase NuShares to maintain his position.

The idea is that those who back NuBits via the NuShare are rewarded with larger share of the company. They’ll have higher stake and wish to avoid dilutions, but dilutions are much more attractive than making NuShares worthless by shutting down the business. If it could have been done any other way, such idea didn’t convince shareholders.

We’ve since been berated for doing what should have already been done to avoid the very situation they complain about. They’re upset with us who did right by NuBit holders and turned demand around. Now we’re in power positions. Is that unfair?

Our payouts do not suffice for purchasing majority stake. I don’t know how many NuShares are required for current majority vote, but passive shareholders may let voting shareholders decide.

lissajous:

I am not proposing 100% cryptoasset reserve.

EDIT: I realize my wording in my previous comment may have led you to believe I was advocating 100% cryptoasset reserve, but I think having the bulk of reserves at all in cryptoassets is destined to be extraordinarily costly in the long run, as Nu’s history and the NSR price clearly shows.

Phoenix likely had enough shares to vote himself into power, as indicated by research from around the time he went rogue and changed his forum name. Surely you are ignoring that inconvenient fact to try and prove a point.

Phoenix likely had enough shares to vote himself into power, as indicated by research from around the time he went rogue and changed his forum name. Surely you are ignoring that inconvenient fact to try and prove a point.

One of my points is that shareholders should decide over their company. Protocol is that voting NuShare holders agreeing in 5,001 blocks within a range of 10,000 blocks causes a shift in the future of the company.

If someone had majority vote at that point, so what? Assuming you don’t like that, the heavy dilutions were the best thing that could happen to the ownership of Nu.

lissajous:

1:1 backing

In what manner? Our liquidity model is one that aims to back every circulating NuBit. It has limited exposure to cryptoasset volatility and works decentralizedly without reliance on fiat currency at exchanges.

lissajous:

We don’t know that…

It’s possible to know that by going through previous transactions and published data. I’m not going to spend all the time necessary to prove that, however.

We’ve since been berated for doing what should have already been done to avoid the very situation they complain about. They’re upset with us who did right by NuBit holders and turned demand around. Now we’re in power positions. Is that unfair?

Exactly.

People are just mad because they lost money and are acting out against the most prominent target. The people who caused the losses are long gone, except @ConfusedObserver, who continues on the forum as a troll, though shareholders don’t permit him to have any other role.

While the assertion that the losses were a result of incompetence, lawlessness, and unprofessional behavior on the part of a number of multisig signers is correct, another valid way of viewing the problem is that Jordan Lee stepped down. The last time he received compensation from shareholders was November 1, 2015, about half a year before the multisig signer crisis. Clearly, if he had maintained more authority and a more active role, shareholders’ interests (as well as the interests of NuBit holders) would have been maintained and the crisis would have never occurred. In a sense, the crisis was caused by Jordan Lee stepping down from any formal role. Stepping down was probably well intended as a decentralization of the network, but subsequent events proved it was premature.

At that time there had been no NuShare losses. For a while there was a motion with support around I believe 40% to suspend liquidity operations entirely, which has been the strongest opposition.

If you want to learn about the real NSR distribution, I recommend to have a look at the analysis which lead to the distribution of shares at Augeas

jooize:

massive dilutions of existing shareholders, meaning that even if say Phoenix had majority vote before, he’d have to purchase NuShares to maintain his position.

Or conveniently ‘lose’ 1 billion NSR?
Please tell me that we don’t know that and I’m tempted to shift to a more @MaVo style when I address you

Phoenix:

The people who caused the losses are long gone

Really? Yet you are still here after losing one billion NSR.

Phoenix:

continues on the forum as a troll, though shareholders don’t permit him to have any other role.

It’s so convenient that shareholders don’t kick you out due to incompetence. I wonder why that is.
Oh, I know, I know! You hold enough shares to dwarf any opposition should a motion to shut you up come. Nice!

Phoenix:

While the assertion that the losses were a result of incompetence, lawlessness, and unprofessional behavior on the part of a number of multisig signers is correct,

I don’t think so. incompetence and lawlessness are attributes I’d assign to Jordan, who orchestrated this massive scam.
Some will grant of professional behavior, though. I suppose it’s the kind of professional behaviour they grant Al Capone, too.

Phoenix:

another valid way of viewing the problem is that Jordan Lee stepped down

Entirely valid, but sounds crazy. That lazy bum just let others do the work.

Phoenix:

the crisis was caused by Jordan Lee stepping down from any formal role.

The crisis was caused by a scammy business scheme that went bust and was initiated when Jordan attacked the multisig group.
You are still trying to write a history that lets you look good, hm?

Why wouldn’t you. You have a lot of ‘stake’ in this game. Or did you really ‘lose’ that billion NSR? Can’t imagine that, considering that you remained perfectly safe and anonymous over the course of the last years.

If someone had majority vote at that point, so what? Assuming you don’t like that, the heavy dilutions were the best thing that could happen to the ownership of Nu.

You echo what has long been said about the centralization of NSR from the start, as if the dilution could in no way benefit @Phoenix, being @JordanLee and lying about the numbers during the ICO. It’s not rocket science to imagine how the dilution could lead to even more centralization of share ownership, yet you and @Phoenix expect us to believe it couldn’t possibly have worked in his favor. The dilution was a moot point if we are trying to gauge share distribution. We are all just pseudonyms here.

jooize:

Our liquidity model is one that aims to back every circulating NuBit.

Aiming for a target and hitting it are two separate activities. The liquidity in the NSR market will move much faster than daily incremental orders that inch towards equilibrium, as we learned when NSR dropped to from what, 2000 satoshis to 40!?

Crunch the numbers and prove your point. Selling private shares over time and into the buybacks are the only ways initial owners could have gained funds to use for buying newly printed shares in the NuShare sales following the peg abandonment. Separate voting majority and circulating supply majority.

Last year lots of NuBits were exiting circulation. @JordanLeewarned that lack of commitment to liquidity was the largest threat. The liquidity team later withheld available funds from NuBit holders (some with the idea of saving for development). The individual who performed the only NuShare sale placed the proceeds at a 180% spread! It was an insult to customers. No further sales were performed by that liquidity team.

Initial ownership is unknown to me. Doesn’t it make sense that those who believe in the system the most and were involved from the start own much of the company? That’s not uncommon, nor is it immoral. You’re free not to like it.

I can’t keep having conversations where loose ideas and even outright falsehoods are considered more credible than presented data. There are angles one can delve deeper into, but they’ll only ever end up at deciding where to go from here.

Research properly and get substance behind your claims. What happened to the NuShare value when the liquidity model the project is built around isn’t employed doesn’t provide data about the merits of the system, only its operators.

Explain with the data you collect how it would have made sense to warn about and then made sure to crash your company, with only potential chance to recover it and regain credibility for more profit.

We’re under attack by people who don’t argue and reason. Please be better than them.

I can’t keep having conversations where loose ideas and even outright falsehoods are considered more credible than presented data.

You fail to notice that a lot of that is subject to interpretation. Depending on the interpretation your ideas are as loose as those you challenge.
If you take a step back you might be able to realize that it appears more like a kind of religious belief you are representing. That’s why you see me and others who fight your belief as blasphemous. I’m sorry for that.

You won’t need to keep having conversations. But you can’t expect those who have different interpretations to be silent.

Nu failed in making the early shareholders rich, that’s why seldom will come to support. Since investors’ money has shrunk to a small case, why would they spend more time/effort here? That’s why this community is not hot any more.

Try to make early shareholders rich, rather than making them busy in trading NSR frequently to avoid losing money. Your liquidity engine scheme is driving investors mad, bad design.